« Dem dishonesty is a reminder that Biden was the ‘installed’ party candidate in 2020. | SCOTUS decision on Trump immunity case sparks a media meltdown »
July 2, 2024

According to Democrats, Biden has immunity to kill Trump and conservative Supreme Court justices

By Andrea Widburg

Yesterday, the Supreme Court came out with a logical opinion that follows centuries of American jurisprudence: A president has complete immunity when he acts within the scope of his express and implied constitutional powers. Within hours, the Democrats were saying that Biden now has absolute immunity to kill his political rivals, from Trump to the conservative justices on the Supreme Court. I want to say that these are not serious people, but they are—they’re dead serious.

You can read a longer commentary here about the Supreme Court’s ruling in Donald Trump v. United States. Here’s the short version: When a president exercises his explicit or implicit powers under the U.S. Constitution, he has absolute immunity.

This immunity exists because no one else has the constitutional authority to challenge those acts, neither the legislature nor the judiciary, and certainly not the bureaucracy, a non-constitutional entity that merely works for the president. It also exists because a president cannot fulfill his unique responsibilities if he’s worried about being second-guessed or attacked. Sure, it may be an imperfect system, but the alternative is worse.

Image by AI.

Alternatively, if a president acts outside of his express and implied powers, he’s an ordinary citizen and is still constrained by all the other prohibitions expressed in the Constitution and the laws of the United States, both federal and state.

As a lawyer, this ruling made sense to me because I’d see the general principle all the time in tort cases in which someone tried to sue a business for the acts of its employee. The question, always, was whether the employee was acting within the scope of his duty when he committed the wrongful act or outside the scope of that duty.

For example, if a short-order cook undercooks meat, giving customers deadly salmonella, the employer is liable because that employee acted within the scope of his duty. However, if a short-order cook sneaks out of the restaurant during a quiet moment to rob a bank, the employer is not liable because that employee was acting outside the scope of the duty.

In the president’s case, it’s the same scope of duty analysis, with only the liability portion being different. If a president orders the Border Patrol to abide by the immigration laws of the United States of America to prevent illegal aliens from entering the country, he is acting within the scope of his constitutional duties, both to carry out duly passed legislation and to protect America’s national security. However, if that same president orders the Border Patrol to ignore the immigration laws of the United States of America, he has violated both duties under the Constitution. That’s an unofficial act for which he can be liable.

However, Justice Sotomayor, who engaged in serious false advertising when she called herself a “wise Latina,” wrote in a panic that the majority’s narrow and exceptional ruling means that, if the president “orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival” then he is “immune.”

Chief Justice Roberts was polite when he castigated this as “strik[ing] a tone of chilling doom that is wholly disproportionate to what the Court actually does today...” In fact, it’s the statement of a complete moron because Sotomayor is unable to distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate acts.

The president may not kill a political rival to win an election (although Democrats, from Biden on down, have gleefully been trying to kill Trump’s campaign through illegitimate lawfare). Killing—if killing there were—could only be for legitimate reasons, and those (presumably) would be in the area of national security. While the Trump decision says that the president doesn’t have to explain himself, the reality is that, if a president is killing rivals, he’d better be damn ready, willing, and able to explain himself, and it can’t just be “I don’t like his policies” or “He might win.”

It also had better not be something obviously faked up, such as, “Despite his plenary power over national security, he had documents that the bureaucrats marked as classified, so he must be locked up forever. Oh, and that totally doesn’t apply to Joe Biden, who absconded with classified documents both as a Senator and Vice President with no plenary power.”

But of course, nuance and deep thinking elude leftists. After their first shock that Trump might escape Jack Smith’s and D.C. Judge Tanya Chutkan’s net, they began to see the bright side of the opinion. Going forward, Biden can go full “Dark Brandon” and kill or otherwise destroy all his political enemies. He’s free! FREE!!

Even Biden, while paying lip service to the “this is a bad idea” line of thinking, is clearly planning ahead...

They’re all delusional, of course. Contrary to Biden, there are huge limits on what a president can do: Anything outside the Constitution is a limit. And as for the rest of these guys, everything they’re suggesting is not only outside the Constitution but is also blatantly illegal.

Just remember, though: While Democrats are delusional and deeply dumb, they’re also deadly serious. We are living in very dangerous times.

If you experience technical problems, please write to helpdesk@americanthinker.com